[PASSED] Liberate Slavia

[Ancian]

True but if we liberate them it would show our support and they their allies might liberate themselves. Even if its repealed.

[The Saint James Islands]

Just so everyone realises, I'm casting my votes IN FAVOUR of this just for shits and giggles. I don't know why, but this seems like it might cause some fun chaos.

Except for those in Slavia, of course. My apologies to them.

-snip-

The smiley spam is wholly unnecessary.

[Port blood]

True but if we liberate them it would show our support and they their allies might liberate themselves. Even if its repealed.

Not exactly,the only hope now is waiting for the raiders to leave,as the defenders seem to have no interest in freeing Slavia
Drafting this is good,if a password is instated before raiders leave,they should liberate at that moment and do their best to retake it,then hold onto the region until a repeal is made so they can refound

As to quote the previous poster

This seems like it might cause some fun chaos

[Ancian]

It will certainly cause chaos but we should show our support of them freeing themselves.

[Southslavistan]

-snip-

The smiley spam is wholly unnecessary.

I'm sorry.
It happens every time Southslavistan leader express his thoughts.
Our citizens love him too much and asking them to try to avoid showing happiness, in a time of big struggle as the one we are going thru nowadays, is undemocratic and totalitarian.
Anyway sorry.

[Whiskum]

Oops,sorry @The South Polish Union,with your wording("what I objected to"),and the first post being quoted was from Slovsko,I assumed it was his as i didnt notice the avatar,sorry about that,not in the best physical state today


If you didn't want to be associated with the FRA,you should have taken better care in making sure you were off the list

We announced our withdrawal from the FRA and left, we assumed that the FRA administration would take the necessary 10 seconds of time to remove us from the list without us having to harass them to do it. Unfortunately, this assumption was apparently wrong.

Why do raiders even need justification?,we're "mega super duper evil",Nobody even made the slightest accusation towards Slavia,it was just misinformation and is something only Slavia seems to even care about,nobody else seems to care

No, we don't need justification for raids. It's just that this time the UIAf decided to try to justify their raid and chose a justification based off of a false assumption, and an assumption which ultimately puts the moral integrity of Slavia in jeopardy. That is what I objected to.

When Slavia joined the FRA, it agreed to follow the terms of the FRA Charter. This requires that departures from the FRA be announced 'directly to the Regional Assembly'. It did not do this until 3rd January, after the invasion, when its FRA representative and Defence Minister made the following statement:

As a representative of Slavia an FRA member, we have decided that it is best to leave the FRA once and for all.

First, our region members feel some animosity with the FRA, since they feel no impact in being in the FRA... until now.

Our region recently became founderless and thus fell to the hands of merciless invaders due to our FRA membership, no matter how dubious it was.

For reasons previously stated in our other thread, Slavia hereby ends its membership and affiliation with the Founderless Regions Alliance.

That is quite clearly Slavia's resignation, a resignation which occurred after the UIAF invaded Slavia.

Now, Slavia's other FRA representative posted a statement about Slavia leaving the FRA on 24th December, but this statement was not made directly to the FRA Assembly as is specifically required by the FRA Charter, the document governing FRA membership: and this point is not just a technicality, because Albul, the other FRA representative, told the FRA following the 24th December statement that Slavia remained in the FRA.

The way disputes like this, a dispute quite clearly between Slavian natives (even if the pro-FRA faction was not backed by the region at large by this point), are resolved is by following the correct, official procedure, a procedure which Slavia subordinated itself to when it signed the FRA Charter. Moreover, in the period between the 24th December and 3rd January, Slavia retained its FRA Embassy, made no external announcement about leaving the FRA and its regional representatives remained in place at the FRA. It remained on the FRA membership list.

In all frankness, a region which joined the FRA in early December should expect to be targeted for this in early January regardless of what it does subsequently. In this particular instance, on the evidence described the UIAF judges Slavia to have been an official and practical FRA member at that time, and when the FRA and Slavia's Defence Minister shared that conclusion, it is entirely reasonable for the UIAF to also adopt it.

Your personal wish to accept what you described in another thread as 'any justification' other than this one points to your inability to come to terms with the consequences of Slavia's FRA membership and the significance of Slavia ruining whatever good it had by joining that organisation.

The moral integrity of Slavia is absolutely in jeopardy: in fact having joined the FRA, it ceased to exist - and quite clearly it never found its way back. Slavian natives may have believed they had left the FRA, but their ignorance of the FRA Charter does not release them from its contractual obligations and their total failure to take practical steps to distance themselves from the FRA hardly shows that their relationship ended either.

[Rotwood]

Against

Just by the looks it is a raider getting raided and they didn't take the adequate measures to prevent it. This whole process would just put the spotlight on them, if it hasn't already since this has gone to vote, making them a potential target. It's an issue they could well resolve themselves by recalling their own forces

[Ancian]

Against

Just by the looks it is a raider getting raided and they didn't take the adequate measures to prevent it. This whole process would just put the spotlight on them, if it hasn't already since this has gone to vote, making them a potential target. It's an issue they could well resolve themselves by recalling their own forces

True. I'll keep my "for" vote to show my support for them uprising but you and port blood have convinced me that they shouldn't have proposed it.

[Port blood]

Against

Just by the looks it is a raider getting raided and they didn't take the adequate measures to prevent it. This whole process would just put the spotlight on them, if it hasn't already since this has gone to vote, making them a potential target. It's an issue they could well resolve themselves by recalling their own forces

True. I'll keep my "for" vote to show my support for them uprising but you and port blood have convinced me that they shouldn't have proposed it.

It's a start,i hope you realize you should be critical about things,and educate yourself about it
Oh,and the spotlight is already on them @Rotwood,due all the drama Slavia is making

[Rotwood]

True. I'll keep my "for" vote to show my support for them uprising but you and port blood have convinced me that they shouldn't have proposed it.

It's a start,i hope you realize you should be critical about things,and educate yourself about it
Oh,and the spotlight is already on them @Rotwood,due all the drama Slavia is making

If that's the case, a liberation will do nothing but prolong things.

This whole thing, along with a recent failed one and another I think 2 votes back that we abstained is the reason why we disagree with the non-forum-vetting practice of the SC. Some of these shouldn't have come to vote, or at least the full story should be available before it comes to vote, not trickle through after the polls have open

[Bodhi Forest]

So, to clear things up, there is no intention to actually liberate the region via defenders. This is just a proposal for the sake of passing a proposal and appearing to do something useful?

We will be voting against the liberation until there is proof that actual effort will go into liberating the region.

[Bubblekirby]

I'm not really sure whether I should vote for or against. If your guys arguments against are as compelling as they sound to my untrained ear, why is the For option winning by such a large margin?

[Mitonialia]

Mitonialia, being a nation interested in supporting the liberation of nations invaded. Believes that this legislation is one that deserves the massive support it is receiving, further, Mitonialia condemns invasion for invasions sake and believes that when war must take place, it must take place for reasons of a moral and true purpose. Therefore, Mitonialia votes yea, and encourages others to vote yea.

[Rotwood]

I'm not really sure whether I should vote for or against. If your guys arguments against are as compelling as they sound to my untrained ear, why is the For option winning by such a large margin?

Because some vote yes for shits and giggles, while others don't bother to read the for and against arguments here, and then there's the group that says "oh, it's going to pass" or "oh, its going to fail" and vote accordingly.

[SkyDip]

I'm not really sure whether I should vote for or against. If your guys arguments against are as compelling as they sound to my untrained ear, why is the For option winning by such a large margin?

Because some vote yes for shits and giggles, while others don't bother to read the for and against arguments here, and then there's the group that says "oh, it's going to pass" or "oh, its going to fail" and vote accordingly.

But mostly because the large cote-carrying Delegates [McMasterdonia (460), Bachtendekuppen (231), Milograd (161), The Black Hat Guy (153), The Salaxalans (147), Frattastan II (117), The Saint James Islands (103)] voted in favor, swinging the lemmings toward FOR.

[Rotwood]

Because some vote yes for shits and giggles, while others don't bother to read the for and against arguments here, and then there's the group that says "oh, it's going to pass" or "oh, its going to fail" and vote accordingly.

But mostly because the large cote-carrying Delegates [McMasterdonia (460), Bachtendekuppen (231), Milograd (161), The Black Hat Guy (153), The Salaxalans (147), Frattastan II (117), The Saint James Islands (103)] voted in favor, swinging the lemmings toward FOR.

As covered in the last part I said

[Frattastan II]

The proposal is meant to discourage a forced refound, since refounding becomes much harder, if not impossible, when you have no ability to password.

The delegate is kicking out natives and inactive invaders, and the number of endorsements is well beyond that normally necessary to hold on the region. The occupation has been ongoing for over two weeks, in spite of the Slavians abudantly repudiating their decision to join FRA.
With the influence-building tactics and the continuation of the occupation, I have no doubt the intent is to clear Slavia of natives and annex the region through password-protecting or refounding (or otherwise holding it for an indefinite time until some arbitrary condition is met).

Slavia isn't even password-protected. Are you serious, Milograd? Against.

It is a pre-emptive move.
Since the current trend with forced refoundings is to kick natives first and then password-protect (as you should know - Islamic Republic of Iran ), waiting until the region is password-protected when there is a clear intent to grief before submitting a Liberation would only serve to put natives and defenders at disadvantage.

Without the ability for a password,the region cannot be refounded safely and effectively,and will likely end up a permanent raider target

Also just so you guys know that by taking away the region's password that it will forever be a warzone until it CTEs?

There are regions which have been Liberated by the SC to stop a griefing, and once recaptured by natives still managed to refound safely and effectively at a later time. There are risks associated with this move, but if the natives are aware of it and still supportive, that's enough.

There is a nation with 123 influence in Slavia vs 22 the raiders hold,with a well ordinated counter-attack the region could be freed by endorsing that nation,which in turn can eject the raiders
After that a password can be put up and refounding can begin

When the invader delegate has 80 endorsements more than any native, defenders cannot realistically put up liberation attempts in the short term. The proposal gives defender groups more time to intervene and, for the occupiers, renders staying in the region to grief it rather worthless in terms of time and resources.

we disagree with the non-forum-vetting practice of the SC. Some of these shouldn't have come to vote, or at least the full story should be available before it comes to vote, not trickle through after the polls have open

This didn't go through the forum first because a certain amount of surprise is necessary to prevent an organised counter-campaigning, or efforts to flood the queue and prevent the resolution from going to vote in a reasonable time.

Sure, let's just pass a Liberation for every raid!

Sure, let's just use strawmen for every proposal.

[The Saint James Islands]

But mostly because the large cote-carrying Delegates [McMasterdonia (460), Bachtendekuppen (231), Milograd (161), The Black Hat Guy (153), The Salaxalans (147), Frattastan II (117), The Saint James Islands (103)] voted in favor, swinging the lemmings toward FOR.

You know what, I've never actually been mentioned like that before. "A large cote-carrying Delegate". Not to mention that I've been mentioned by SkyDip. I've accomplished something...

By the way, what is a "cote"?

[Ancian]

As i've stated earlier, by supporting it we may encourage them to rebel. If they don't then they missed their shot. If they rebel and win however we can repeal it. Though it likes the invaders are staying.

[Getti]

1. The Black Riders have already left Slavia, and many other groups will be leaving the area shortly.

2. You only liberate a region if it has a password on it. Otherwise its basically a visual arrow for defenders, however it will have no effect unless defenders carry out a liberation which would be too hard to hope for.

3. This proposal again accomplishes nothing. If defenders choose to continue to be armchair warriors, then let them see how ineffective it is to preach defenderism from behind a forum while most raiders do not even use the forums. If you want Slavia back, take it like a man.

[Ancian]

I would but my region is extremly close to invasion and in the last two days we've defended two warzones but unfortunately lost one. We're already under martial law. So i don't have the time or force to help slavia. Or for that matter the authority to order a liberation.

[Ponderosa]

But mostly because the large cote-carrying Delegates [McMasterdonia (460), Bachtendekuppen (231), Milograd (161), The Black Hat Guy (153), The Salaxalans (147), Frattastan II (117), The Saint James Islands (103)] voted in favor, swinging the lemmings toward FOR.

You know what, I've never actually been mentioned like that before. "A large cote-carrying Delegate". Not to mention that I've been mentioned by SkyDip. I've accomplished something...

By the way, what is a "cote"?

You'll notice that the "c" is right next to the "v" on your keyboard.

[Virgin Mobile]

Sorry you cant just peacefully liberate a country. There is going to be conflict worse than whats happening, its their problem their leader dropped out so its their job to Resolve the problem. Against

[Getti]

Sorry you cant just peacefully liberate a country. There is going to be conflict worse than whats happening, its their problem their leader dropped out so its their job to Resolve the problem. Against

They were occupied because they were a part of the FRA, not because their founder CTE'd. If they want to fix this they must issue a statement discontinuing any alliance with the FRA or any defender organizations, actually leave and pledge against these organizations, and allow for the integration as a raider moderate independent region.

[Chester Pearson]

Typical reaction from The Internationale.... We vote FOR this resolution.

Is he even from TI?
Besides why are you voting for because another nation votes against? It's a new high point of prejudice

The fact that I proudly fly the UDL colours, might have something to do with it.... Secondly I don't hide the fact that I despise The Internationale.....

Now I have noticed that you seem to have a rather large hard on against this proposal... Care to explain why, or is it just a general hatred?